Explorer

The issuer engaged an external specialist (“company's specialist”) to assist in determining a significant assumption used by the issuer in performing its annual impairment analysis for certain goodwill using a Value in Use (VIU) approach. The issuer used various inputs and assumptions some of which the engagement team considered to be significant to prepare the VIU model used in the impairment analysis. The firm's approach for substantively testing the goodwill for impairment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used by the company's specialist to determine the significant assumption used by the issuer in performing its annual impairment analysis beyond evaluating the consistency of the assumptions with historical experience and obtaining and reading the report prepared by the company's specialist. Further the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the work of the company's specialist beyond inquiry and testing the accuracy of certain data used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A6-.A10; AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged an external specialist (“company's specialist”) to assist in determining a significant assumption used by the issuer in performing its annual impairment analysis for certain goodwill using a Value in Use (VIU) approach. The issuer used various inputs and assumptions some of which the engagement team considered to be significant to prepare the VIU model used in the impairment analysis. The firm's approach for substantively testing the goodwill for impairment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to certain projected data used by the issuer in the VIU model including taking into account the issuer's intent and ability to achieve the assumptions and projected data beyond inquiry obtaining a current contract and bid from an external vendor unrelated to the significant assumption and performing a sensitivity analysis. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. During the year after identifying impairment indicators the issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment. At year end the issuer performed its annual goodwill impairment assessment using a quantitative assessment. The issuer engaged a specialist to perform both assessments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test the quantitative assessment of goodwill performed during the year beyond inquiry and obtaining and reading the company's specialist report. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the work of the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A6 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. During the year after identifying impairment indicators the issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment. At year end the issuer performed its annual goodwill impairment assessment using a quantitative assessment. The issuer engaged a specialist to perform both assessments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the relevance of data related to comparable companies used by the company's specialist in the year-end quantitative assessment because it did not evaluate (1) the relative values of income statement accounts in concluding that the companies were comparable and (2) that the data used from certain of the comparable companies was significantly dated. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. During the year after identifying impairment indicators the issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment. At year end the issuer performed its annual goodwill impairment assessment using a quantitative assessment. The issuer engaged a specialist to perform both assessments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed and used by the company's specialist in the year-end quantitative assessment. (AS 1105.A8b)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. During the year after identifying impairment indicators the issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment. At year end the issuer performed its annual goodwill impairment assessment using a quantitative assessment. The issuer engaged a specialist to perform both assessments. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate a GAAP departure related to the issuer's omission of a disclosure related to goodwill that is required by FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles – Goodwill and Other. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's goodwill impairment analyses for certain reporting units was to develop independent expectations. The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for certain assumptions that it used in its independent expectations. (AS 2501.22)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's goodwill impairment analyses for certain reporting units was to develop independent expectations. The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of disclosures with respect to goodwill as required by FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles — Goodwill and Other. (AS 2810.30 and .31)